At the Sourceforge breakfast this morning we got some questions on what the organizational differences are between open source and social media. Here’s my answer:
One of the paradoxes of early 20th Century management was the observation that companies are best run as dictatorships, while countries are best run as democracies. Why was this? Management theorist Charles Barnard, in his theory of the firm, proposed that it was because organizations existed for a common “shared purpose”. Countries, on the other hand, existed only to serve their people.
Shared purpose required singular vision, leadership and top-down control. Serving the people, on the other hand, benefits from bottoms-up recognition of needs and collective decision-making (voting).
Many people mistakenly think that open source projects are emergent, self-organized and democratic. The truth is just the opposite: most are run by a benevolent dictator or two. What makes successful open source projects is leadership, plain and simple. One or two people articulate a vision, start building towards it and bring others on board with specific tasks and permissions. The best projects are the ones with the best leaders.
Social media, on the other hands, doesn’t exist for a shared purpose. It exists to serve the individual. We don’t tweet to built Twitter, we tweet to suit ourselves. We blog because we can, not because we have signed on to a blogging project.
Seen this way, open source projects are like companies. Social media is like a country. Benevolent dictatorships rule the first; democracy the second.
The point: the nature of participation is very different between open source and social media, even though people tend to lump them together into "peer production". Open source is hierarchical by design, while social media structure is simply ruled by popularity.
Benevolent Dictatorships are the ultimate ruling order. Just ask God! Open source serves the community as a result of the labors of a select few within the masses. I like the concept. Yet invariably there are those that believe that they somehow own the work of these communities simply because they participate. It is a keen insight however that seems almost paradoxical given the context of your argument. In any organizational structure leaders must emerge.
Posted by: Internet Marketing IQ | June 13, 2009 at 02:31 PM
Reading this article I was asking a question to myself, what is more powerful and more success in human manipulation, open source or a social media? And you know what? I don't know the answer:( How do you think who will win at this competition?
Freebies
Free Magazines
Posted by: Felix | June 15, 2009 at 09:45 AM
A very interesting take on open source projects, although slightly altruistic I feel. Open source developers usually have an end game, or other agenda, whether it be developing commercial applications as 'add-ons' to the basic open source application, or to develop a name for themselves in a particular field.
Free Forex Signals
Posted by: AndrewEJ | June 16, 2009 at 06:25 AM
you discussed open source and social media, very good with this topic. nice!
Debt Help
Posted by: christopher | June 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM
"One of the paradoxes of early 20th Century management was the observation that companies are best run as dictatorships, while countries are best run as democracies" Interesting comment and one that makes me ponder whether this still applies to today.
Isreal
insurance advice
Posted by: mig | June 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I agree with James and Angela - I too have worked in management. The concept of self-managed teams in the workplace in the mid 90's was great in concept - but in the end, if you don't have one person that keeps everyone else on track, you lose productivity to those who just can't manage their own time or tasks without someone overseeing it.
Free Criminal Record Search
Posted by: Carl | June 23, 2009 at 04:45 AM
Great point!
Posted by: furnace filters | June 23, 2009 at 02:59 PM
I wonder tho if that is correct.
I absolutely agree that companies must have a benevolent dictator as its guiding force. But after how 8 years of bad democratic government, I'm open to suggestion regarding the best national governing process.
Congress is bought and paid for, and the President has so many IOUs in his pocket that its difficult to create real change.
If you look at the years of state sponsored racism, bigotry and homophobia, are we sure that the majority is always right?
Just my 2 cents
Andrew Brinkworth
Miami Auto Insurance
Posted by: Charity Golf | June 30, 2009 at 03:43 AM
There are some good points here but I do not agree with this "The point: the nature of participation is very different between open source and social media, even though people tend to lump them together into "peer production""
Posted by: Hoodia | July 01, 2009 at 03:19 PM
this is really new way to looking thing. i am from india and found lot more thing here to learn.
Thanks
Posted by: amit | July 02, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Shared purpose vs shared platform becomes blurred when the platform becomes the purpose. In other words, facism occurs when building a country becomes a priority before doing things in that country, and people rely on a single source for that vision.
With me so far? Well in that case, there may be a democratic version of "fascism", where instead of implementing one guy's single vision, we create a single vision from all of our ideas. That requires the mother of all conversations, and the trick is to do that without it lasting forever.
Stafford Beer, an organisational researcher reckoned he had found a way to create such conversations, based on structured information networks. It's since been turned into a snazy method called syntegration, but I wonder whether then same ideas could be applied elsewhere. One of the main things that make it work is setting the right degree to which people have to agree with each other, based on the actual interactions of the real world problems they seek to resolve. In other words, we don't need total unity, just enough not to mess up each other's plans. There's more to it than that, like stuff to stop people getting too much influence or people going off on back-patting exercises, but you get the idea.
Posted by: Josh W | July 03, 2009 at 07:22 AM
Faimly Law
Our extensive Lawyer Directory listings are filled with competent
lawyers ready to help you with all legal matters. Browse and search
for a lawyer by geographic location and areas of practice.
family-law
Posted by: smomdad | July 03, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Interesting analyses but I prefer a social media, they seems to be more democratic
Posted by: USA Freebies | July 06, 2009 at 01:36 PM
I think they can actually be intertwined though as well. I don't necessarily feel they are always so different. It all depends on who and why they are using it.
Resveratrol
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 07, 2009 at 05:02 AM
In past year social media play a big roll political. For exemple:Obama reelection, Moldovian revolution or Iran street movement. Some Iranian election protesters used Twitter to get people on the streets, but most of the organizing happened the old-fashioned way,
Posted by: freereminder | July 07, 2009 at 06:42 AM
That's an interesting point of view. I wouldn't want to generalize, but you have something there.
Posted by: Internet marketing | July 07, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Very good post, thanks for the useful info
Baton Rouge Roofing Company
Posted by: Contractors | July 07, 2009 at 12:14 PM
that IS a good way of explaining the difference, have to commit that one to memory.
Posted by: Vimax | July 08, 2009 at 12:37 AM
they are high quality timepieces which is attractive,Rolex -
Replica Rolex -
Replica Watches -
Rolex -
Replica Breitling -
Rolex -
Rolex
,good time!
Posted by: Rolex | July 08, 2009 at 02:09 AM
Sometimes you need a dictator or dicatatorship to do things which are not possible in democracy.
Posted by: Mind | July 08, 2009 at 05:26 AM
It's the same for countries. People vote for a person. Even if a program is set up by a community, to be elected you need somebody to personify it.
Solarenergie
Posted by: Tom | July 08, 2009 at 06:33 AM
Id like to observe the same ideas within our country.
Posted by: Lewi | July 08, 2009 at 06:46 AM
It really great idea.i am impress with your thinking.
your article is really very informative.
Teeth whitening
Posted by: Teeth Whitening | July 09, 2009 at 12:17 AM
this is a very interesting entry and I do like the comparison you make between social media and open source. I do have to disagree on your view of social media in that you believe that it does not exist for a shared purpose. Yes, you are right people tweet not to help twitter grow but for their own personal gain, but there are circumstances where the distribution of say very urgent and critical info and news can be spread using social media which counteracts your argument.
I mean I do agree with you- but there are situations where this notion is questions.
Great post.
kitchen renovation melbourne
Posted by: emil | July 09, 2009 at 04:26 PM
Shame about some of the spam, a very interesting article, OSP really is overlooked and so versatile.
Posted by: greatmanjohn | July 14, 2009 at 09:24 AM
Haha Rich, I have to agree with you :)
Good article, I enjoyed it.
Ndru from male enhancement
Posted by: ndru | July 17, 2009 at 06:31 AM
"What both open source and social media have in common is that both tend to be meritocracies. "
I second that.
Mundo Oi
Posted by: Mundo Oi | July 17, 2009 at 09:31 AM
Great thoughts and a really interesting debate. Would love to see a really democratic country!
kdl40Z5500
Posted by: milo | July 18, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I'm not sure the average person cares so much about the organizational structure as long as the end product delivers. I for one love Joomla and seldom take the time to dig into the organization of the product other than to suggest features. I'd sure like to see native commenting built in. But I get the point that someone has got to take charge and give direction to any project.
Posted by: Vans | July 19, 2009 at 05:48 PM
Any quality project has to have direction. Also, I tend to think the same about caring only for the end result.
Posted by: Škole stranih jezika | July 20, 2009 at 02:28 PM
A very interesting view of open sourcing and social media! :)
Get Rid Of Your Financial Problems!
Posted by: David | July 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM
"Whatever your views are, i like open source staff"
I second that.
Alaskan Cruises
European Cruises
Posted by: Mark | July 27, 2009 at 01:15 PM
The great leaders in open source are followed voluntarily because they have proved their merit as designers, visionaries, or organizers. Similarly, social media recognizes those who make substantial contributions: contributors voluntarily link to other contributors who make worthwhile contributions.
David From Deeper Voice Blog
Posted by: David | July 30, 2009 at 07:13 AM
I guess I get the Open Source as a company analogy but like the other commentors, the second one takes more pondering. Certainly companies need strong leadership and someone making ultimate decisions. But don't countries need the same? Social media does have more of a democracy type environment if that's what you intended.
Glenn digital photo frames
Posted by: glenn | August 02, 2009 at 07:13 AM
"One of the paradoxes of early 20th Century management was the observation that companies are best run as dictatorships, while countries are best run as democracies."
Truer words then these were never said.
home remedies for sunburn
BOSE V20 Home Theater System
Posted by: Ken | August 06, 2009 at 02:40 AM
Nice post.you have done a great job,i always confuse about social media and open source but your article clear me about all the things.
Cellulite
Posted by: taroniacarter | August 12, 2009 at 04:59 AM
Thanks for an enlightening post. Quite interesting, imho of course group efforts benefit from great leadership. Likely there is some bottom-up influence in all instances of good leadership. Goo leadership will work to bring the best out in the groups they happened to lead successfully by reflecting, communicating and fostering a shared vision. However, your points are clearly valid too. slim blog Cheers
Posted by: susan (weight loss queen :) | August 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Nice post and good comparison between opensource and social media
Iphone
Posted by: Vijay | August 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM
"One of the paradoxes of early 20th Century management was the observation that companies are best run as dictatorships, while countries are best run as democracies."
Having been a top level manager for 20 years I can tell you that truer words were NEVER spoken.
[url=http://www.coloncleansetablets.com]colon cleanse tablets[/url]
Posted by: paul | August 17, 2009 at 06:42 AM
It's the same for countries. People vote for a person. Even if a program is set up by a community, to be elected you need somebody to personify it.
colon cleanse tablets
Posted by: Paul Potts | August 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM